THE STATUTORY EMPLOYEE DOCTRINE IN TRUCKING CASES

TEXAS TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

ADVANCED PERSONAL INJURY COURSE

MAY 1-2, 2003 - DALLAS

SCOTT P. CALLAHAN LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT P. CALLAHAN, P.C. 3120 SOUTHWEST FREEWAY, SUITE 650 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77098 (713) 224-9000

DARRIN WALKER LAW OFFICE OF DARRIN WALKER 2054 PARKDALE DRIVE KINGWOOD, TEXAS 77339 (281) 358-2295 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Trucking Industry Abuse...... 1

B. Purpose of the 1956 Amendments ...... 1

C. ...... 1

II. FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

A. 49 U.S.C. §14102 ...... 2

B. 49 C.F.R. 376.12...... 2

C. Exclusive Possession, Control, and Use; Complete Responsibility ...... 2

III. THE STATUTORY EMPLOYEE DOCTRINE

A. Principle ...... 4

IV. ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY

A. Independent Contractor Outside Course and Scope of Agency ...... 5

B. Interstate Carrier and Purely Intrastate Haul...... 6

C. Respondeat Superior Preempted...... 6

D. Non-Delegable Duty ...... 7

E. View of Minority Jurisdiction...... 7

V. SEMINAL TEXAS CASES

A. Morris v. JTM Materials, Inc...... 8

B. North American Van Lines, Inc. v. Emmons...... 8

C. Greyhound Van Lines, Inc. v. Bellamy ...... 9

D. Mata v. Andrews Transport, Inc...... 10

E. Barbour Trucking Co. v. State ...... 10 THE STATUTORY EMPLOYEE DOCTRINE IN TRUCKING CASES

I. INTRODUCTION interstate motor carriers would be fully responsible for the maintenance and operation of A. Trucking Industry Abuse the leased equipment and the supervision of the drivers. The amendments sought to prevent Prior to 1956, interstate motor carriers attempted interstate carriers from evading liability through to immunize themselves from liability for leasing and independent contractor arrangements. negligent drivers by leasing trucks and classifying drivers as independent contractors. Carriers C. Public Policy evaded the Interstate Commerce Commission’s (ICC) safety regulations and avoided liability for The law was designed to correct trucking industry injuries caused by the unsafe operation of the abuses, thereby: trucks. Under these circumstances, injured third parties had to navigate legal mazes to determine • Protecting the motoring public from who was responsible to compensate them for their insolvent independent contractors by damages, thus delaying their recovery. And assuring that financially solvent interstate usually, their efforts revealed that only an motor carriers were liable for injuries insolvent independent contractor was liable, and caused by leased trucks. See, e.g., the solvent interstate carrier was not. See, e.g., Transamerican, 423 U.S. at 37; Price v. Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. v. Brada Miller Westmoreland, 727 F.2d 494, 496 (5th Cir. Freight Sys., Inc., 423 U.S. 28, 36-38 (1975); 1984); Rodriguez v. Ager, 705 F.2d 1229, American Trucking Ass’ns v. United States, 344 1233 (10th Cir. 1983); White, 599 F.2d at U.S. 298, 303-305 (1953); White v. Excalibur Ins. 52; Rediehs, 491 N.E.2d at 1011; Empire Co., 599 F.2d 50, 52-53 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 444 Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. U.S. 965 (1979); Alford v. Major, 470 F.2d 132, Ins. Co., 699 A.2d 482, 501 (Md. Ct. 134 (7th Cir. 1972); Kreider Truck Serv., Inc. v. Spec. App.), cert. denied, 703 A.2d 148 Augustine, 394 N.E.2d 1179, 1181-1182 (Ill. (1997); Matkins v. Zero Refrigerated 1979); Rediehs Express, Inc. v. Maple, 491 Lines, Inc., 602 P.2d 195, 200 (N.M. Ct. N.E.2d 1006, 1011 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), cert. App. 1979). denied, 480 U.S. 932 (1987); Cox v. Bond Transp., Inc., 249 A.2d 579, 584-586 (N.J. 1969), • Ensuring compliance with the ICC’s cert. denied, 395 U.S. 935 (1969); Cincinnati Ins. safety regulations. See, e.g., Co. v. Haack, 708 N.E.2d 214, 219-223 (Ohio Ct. Transamerican, 423 U.S. at 41; American App. 1997). Trucking, 344 U.S. at 305 and 310; Prestige Cas. Co